why?

Of course, all artists are taught that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but like many dogmatic and myopic philosophies regarding beauty that people seem to adhere to, it isn't necessarilly an accurate perception!

Why not just say 'universe'? Why use a term that is clearly derived from religious myths where specific anthropomorphizations dominate and force adherents into delusional states of mind? By using such a loaded term, much of these anthropomorphizations will perpetuate subconsciously even if you deny that they are allowed by your system.

Because the act of fighting is bad, it turns the 'Good' to 'Bad'.

I disagree; the act of fighting is neither good nor bad, it is simply an act. What makes the act 'good' or 'bad' is the intent of the fighter.

I would say that willful neglect is intended, and that this is the only kind of neglect that can qualify as 'evil'; in this sense, the original definition applies

This person chose to risk the baby's health on his own capacity to remember the dangerous position he left her/him, and to compound that risk by imbibing alcohol. The 'evil' in this is that the risk was far greater than the net payout: possible dead baby for a smidgen of convenience. It is possible that the person was unaware of the risk to the baby, in which case he wins the Darwin award for stupidity. If, however, he was aware of the risk but chose to take it anyway then he is guilty of criminal negligence (a form of 'evil').

this refers to the inherent undecidability in judging another's act as good or evil. I cannot be sure if another is acting out of 'evil' intent or not; I can only measure the results of their actions against my understanding of the situation. I do, however, know my own intent. I cannot commit 'evil' without knowing that I have done so.

I'm saying they didn't 'do nothing' if they were aware of the situation.

probably

The key is the decision that enables the 'evil' action. If awareness of the dilemma has not occurred, then the person cannot have made a decision (reflecting intent) and therefore cannot have committed 'evil'.

Yes! Without intent to harm, we have only harm.

What it really means (and, I suspect, what you don't like) is that the definition of 'good' and 'evil' is measured subjectively (as Hey Hey was alluding to). If this is the case, and if it is also the case that evildoers will not stop themselves, how can we be sure that, in the process of stopping evildoers from causing unnecessary harm, we are not ourselves causing more harm than good?

This is one of the core questions of ethics and law. The law does judge intent, both in findings of guilt and decisions of punishment. Whether or not this is reasonable might be debated by some, but the majority clearly believe this is both possible and can be fairly administered. I have participated in criminal juries several times and I think justice prevails, generally.

From a metaphysical viewpoint, you seem to emphasize intent in your definition. We are all familiar with cases where evil intent seems to dominate. For example, the case of the cold-blooded thug who will take a wallet and then shoot the victim just for the hell of it. That class of evil is very clear cut. The problem, in my understanding of it, is the more common case, where, say, a jilted lover will be unable to control his rage and shoot his ex-girlfriend and her lover. Days later he will realize that his inability to control his rage (a form of weakness) has put him in a very bad position. I see these evils of weakness as forms of evil too, although, quite rightly, not of the same class as the more blatant examples.

To further reinforce the argument, suppose we have a case of a guy who gets these sadistic impulses from time to time, but is able to fight them down using his inner strength and knowledge of honor and rightness. Then one day he weakens, and lets his darker impulses get the better of him. Isn't this example of weakening an expression of evil? If so, then we need to examine other ways in which weakness allows evil to occur.

Until the social laws are fully understood, the assertion that striving for the positive is unwise is baseless. It may well be that a utoian future is possible.

Certainly our families, schools, laws, courts, police, and government work toward minimizing harm in our society. While some of this work may not always be of optimal efficiency, I don't think it can successfully be argued that we should not do it.